Red Pill Logic: The Fatal Conceit

In the articles regarding the future of the blue pill illusion and the red and blue pill theoretical framework I describe the present social narrative and perspectives that are part of present constructed reality. I refer to this as constructed reality due to its existence parallel to what can be established through empirical research into biology, in essence it is an attempt to add a veneer of civility and idealism on top of what is ultimately an uncivilized and brutal system. This system is evolution by natural selection and is ultimately a system that only cares about what works, not how moral, politically correct or civilized it is.

Such veneers are quite common on the smaller scale, in fact the blue pill illusion is one such veneer that seeks to cover up the inherent tendencies that exist in the female of the species, and the manner in which our social order has been adapted to cater to the female imperative [1]. Socialism is another, which seeks to harness the view of an idealist as a catalyst to human progress in complete and utter opposition to our inherent nature.

The Red pill seeks to draw back the curtain, and to explain that the social veneer, which obscures a man’s ability to operate in reality, and instead have him operate according to what benefits the venerated groups within the world. However, as with all attempts to conceal or to control nature, it only lasts a short period of time before the dissonance becomes too great between what is experienced or observed, and what one is told. Thus, the authors of red pill blogs and books do not “red pill” men, women red pill men through their behavior, we merely explain what happened.

The present veneer consists of the following points:

A) A belief that humans are instinctless and merely products of their socialization.

B) A rejection of the effects that our biological evolution have had one our species.

C) The rejection of the mind-independent framework that evolved during the Enlightenment as a governance system for human interaction.

D) The belief that one can override the imperatives of natural selection through socialization.

Between Instincts and Reason

As humans we are somewhat unique in nature in that we have both the capacity for reason and instinct, whereas the remainder of the species on this Earth have to rely purely on their instinct. This permits us to act contrary to our inherent instinct and nature, for good and bad, however it also permits us to construct illusions to conceal the uncomfortable truth of our lowly origin.

The often used “Blank Slate” or “Tabula Rasa” models utilized within social sciences are of the type that view our inherent nature as fabrication and conclude that we are the products of our social influences [1]. In doing so, they are relying on the submission of instinct to the perspective of reason. Where what are deemed immoral, or improper qualities can be attributed not to inherent biological differences, but to differences in culture and socialization. Perhaps the ultimate step in removing man from his origin, the position that man is product of mind alone, of which the reductio ad absurdum position approaches what is known as “hard solipsism“. This view often cites John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” as the foundational text of the view.

As the early 20th century progressed the school of nature slowly went out of vogue and the school of hard behaviorism and various other schools gained influence, as Ashley Montagu said:

“Man is man because he has no instincts, because everything he is and has become he has learned, acquired, from his culture with the exception of the instinctoid reactions in infants to sudden withdrawals of support and to sudden loud noises, the human being is entirely instinctless.” [2]

Where all other species on Earth act out similar cycles of mating seemingly from instinct alone, our species have through the development of civilization and social groups slowly removed itself from our lowly origin, through the construction of intellectual veneers that obscure the underlying reality.

The Evolution of Species

Our species is one that has evolved over millennia, and as Darwin put it shows the traits of its lowly origin. As primates, it would follow that many of the traits that are obscured by higher order functions in humans, more specifically our capacity for reason, are expressed more clearly in our distant cousins. As touched on in an earlier post on male sexual strategies our mating methodology appears to align with that of the three closest cousins of our species, the Gorilla, the Bonobo and the Chimpanzee, the other great apes. Examples of this would be the tendency of male-centric societies to value certainty of paternity, often expressed through control of female sexuality, using methods such as marriage, social pressures and religion, in an effort to ensure that the male is actually the father of the children he is contributing to raising. This mimics the behavior of Gorillas, where an Alpha male is the only male within the troop consisting of the Alpha and the female gorillas that has mating privileges. The antithesis to this proposition would be best embodied by the Bonobo, which is a female centered species, where paternity is if no importance, but where the social status of a male is derived from the social status of his mother.

Thus, one could argue that in the Gorilla troop, the mating exists on a one to many continuum, where the male Silverback has a sexual monopoly over many women, much in the same manner that polygamous marriage functions in the case of humans. Whereas in the group of Bonobos mating exists on a many to many continuum where no sexual monopoly exists. In the case of the former, the women are dependent on a single male for their provision and protection, for which they trade their reproductive value, whereas in the latter the women are not dependent on any single man, but rather the strength of the collective.

As one considers that the modern human is merely 200.000 years old and is the product of millions of years of evolution. Furthermore, that civilization arguably arose a mere 75.000 years ago. Yet, that for the entirety of that time, humans have been reactive to our surroundings more than they have shaped their surroundings to fit ourselves. The position that civilization can override nature hardly seems sensible.

The Origin of Modern Civilization

Our modern civilization owes much to the philosophers and natural scientists of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, as their rediscovery of Greek philosophy brought Europe out of the Dark Ages and towards the Industrial revolution, through a veneration of reason and empiricism. One of the central philosophical thoughts during this period was regarding the role of reason in social structures and politics, a field often dominated by physical force and intimidation. Where the social groups of our species were often based on the super-natural as a basis for social organization in the form of religion, the enlightenment sought to change the arbiter of truth from divine revelation to the human capacity for reason. This was supported by a focus on what could be observed, and manifested as empiricism and the analysis of the natural order of things by the faculty of reason.

For the first time in recorded history the protection of the individual’s right to self-determination became a paramount concern. However, it is an unavoidable fact that the self-interest and pursuit of happiness of individuals may conflict, and therefore a shared framework is required to govern such conflicts. This is where the mind-independent frameworks of empiricism and reason come in.

Rather than subject the populace to undue violations of the rights they are endowed with from nature, the system sought to establish in a mind-independent fashion rules and principles that govern the relationships between individuals, groups and individuals and their group. As an example, by permitting an individual inventor to keep the profits and ownership of his invention, rather than it being appropriated by the King, encouraged innovation. The right to free expression, and peaceful assembly permitted the marketplace of free ideas to flourish, with less fear of being burned at the stake for heresy.

The Fatal Conceit

Defining when the enlightenment idea of the individual’s rights as established in a mind-independent fashion transitioned to the veneration of subjective perspectives is a complex one. The individual as a central focus necessitates the inclusion of individual perspectives by definition. The synthesis of the needs of the many and the needs of the view in enlightenment philosophy was the inclusion of individual world views and values within a mind-independent framework. Meaning that each individual may govern himself according to his subjective world view, provided that it does not infringe upon the rights of other individuals as per the over-arching objective framework that governs the group.

However, the relationship between the pursuit of happiness for each individual, and the mind-independent governing system was certain to be one fraught with conflict. After all, the system is designed for this exact reason, to govern the relationship between the rights of one individual and that of another individual. It was inevitable that some individuals would seek to undermine the mind-independent system so that they may gain for themselves more freedom.

Thus, was born an academic tradition of subjectivity, distinct from empiricism that sought to raise the subjective perspectives of individuals up as the equivalent to mind-independent knowledge. As this tradition progressed, the concept of a biological basis for behavior that had long linked disparate disciplines within the social sciences to the empiricism of biology, grew ever weaker and the concept of “nurture vs. nature” became “Just nurture“.

If man is born blank, then it follows that everything that makes man, like software can merely be deleted and overwritten. Some pieces of software can be more difficult to delete or amend than others, but ultimately they are malleable. Thus, the fatal conceit was born, man can be shaped by other men as clay, there is no inherent preferences just convergent social programming.

Summary and Conclusion

I borrowed the title and structure of this post from Friedrich Hayek’s “Socialism: The Fatal Conceit” for the reason that socialism is a child of the view that man has no inherent nature as well. Much of the blue pill illusion and the theoretical framework that serves as its basis are based on propositions removed from reality. The male preference for the female hourglass figure, or the preoccupation regarding paternity are merely a case of social programming, and thus these men must be “re-programmed” to hold the “right” values.

The fatal conceit is therefore belief in the supremacy of socialization and man’s domination of nature. However, as with socialism, this is merely a symptom of a deeper disorder, one that we have seen erupt and spread in a viral manner many times before in human history; the desire of man to control the functions of nature. To draw a parallel the 2008 financial crisis came as a consequence of a couple of decades of “re-inflating the bubble” in order to avoid a full-scale depression, the response to 2008, was once more to re-inflate the bubble to avoid the nature of capitalism taking its course. In an attempt to avoid the consequences of their actions, bankers and politicians are attempting to control the inherent characteristics of capitalism. Namely, that capitalism is a “self-repairing” system, however in order to do this the bust must be allowed to take place. Any action that prevents the bust from taking place, will merely ensure that the consequences are that much greater when it finally occurs.

Much in the same manner, the red pill is a revolt against the blue-eyed egalitarianism, lead by the proposition that even though we are a sexually dimorphic species, that have lead very different lives throughout the history of our species, we are identical. The flaw in this line of thinking is attempted to apply the same principles to biological adaptations as one does to social frameworks. This view of man is above and in control of nature, that our social frameworks shape reality, rather than merely permits us to view reality

A note:

I recently launched a Patreon page where I will be posting additional content every month for those who support me and I will do a Google Hangout for the highest tier Patrons (limited to 10 people).

I’ve also had some requests for consults, which I’ve declined up until now, but due to demand I’ve chosen to open up for doing some consults on request. For details please check out my Consulting and Patreon Page

Also, I love to present myself with ideas that clash with each other. As an exercise, I enjoy holding many conflicting things in my mind until I stop getting an emotional response. Then I manage to see pros and cons more clearly.

On that note, I’d love to read an analysis coming from you of ideas like those found in the zeitgeist movement.

This guy Peter Joseph has many interesting concepts in his free book (The Zeitgeist Movement Defined: Realizing a New Train of Thought). Many ideas with which I do not agree. Others that I find very interesting.